Linux-Advocacy Digest #116, Volume #30 Wed, 8 Nov 00 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Chad Myers")
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Les Mikesell")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (mlw)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Who says Linux is great? ("MH")
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Konqueror a great web browser ("MH")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (Roberto Teixeira)
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Caldera OpenLinux User)
Re: Who says Linux is great? (Roberto Teixeira)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:48:55 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ubd0u$2ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d4O5.14140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:3a083902$0$32738$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> >
> > > So you apply some patch to your filesystem driver (scary), then rewrite
> > all
> > > of your apps to use 64-bit file offsets (bug prone), then you spend a
> few
> > > years testing, and the limit is gone! Not very appealing to me but... at
> > > least you can do it, and it is "free", right?
> >
> > Or, you move to a CPU type that matches your problem. But I guess
> > you wouldn't have thought of that since you are stuck with Intel's.
>
> HA?
> You just suggested that if I want > 2GB files, I would go and buy a whole
> new computer to put linux on?
> Why wouldn't I reuse this computer as a NT/2000 which doesn't suffer this
> limitation?
Hell, there's quite a few OSes that don't suffer these limitations on the
same hardware. BeOS, OS/2 and a few other no names come to mind.
Linux is certainly deficient here (as is usually the case).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:54:18 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Past record? MS' support for Alpha (which had a reasonable sized
> > market) was pretty good.
>
> You're an NT Alpha user, then? 'Cause everybody else seems to be
> whining about the lousy Alpha support from MS.
We had an alpha box at the last place I worked at. Ironically, NT
was incredibly easy to set up, but I couldn't get Linux running at all.
Red Hat 6.2 setup would freeze while detecting the CDROM. I tried everything
short of pawning up the money to pay Red Hat support (chat, newsgroups,
lousy, worthless HOWTOs, etc).
The only problem I had with NT on Alpha was that MS hadn't yet released
SP2 for MS Exchange.
I also remember that there wasn't a patch for Visual InterDEV for the
debugging stuff because it wasn't working quite right. It eventually
came out, but I no longer needed it.
Alpha support certainly has waned now in the past few months. Since
Compaq shut out MS, MS support for Alpha has declined. There still isn't
a very large install base. Most important patches and new software releases
(like the JavaVM) are instantly available on both platforms, but new
software isn't being developed for Alpha. Perhaps this is their gripe,
but it's not really MS' fault. Compaq stopped the support, and Alpha
sales are way down.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 14:10:12 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kU3O5.1041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > We also won't count the fact that major vendors, such as Dell at least
> > up until early 99, installed NT Workstation on FAT filesystems by
> > default. So you had no security at all.
>
> And this is MS' fault how? OEM's ignorance is not MS' fault. MS has
> many checklist and walk-throughs on securing a box at varying levels.
>
> Dell's choice to not install their boxes with consideration of security
> is Dell's fault.
You know exactly why nearly every NT box is installed either running
on FAT or with a second copy loaded on a bootable FAT partition.
If you don't, there is no way to recover from any of the common
problems that might happen to make the NTFS filesystem unbootable.
Good plan, Microsoft...
> > Nor will we count the assorted IE and Outlook holes that could easily
> > lead to account compromises by premitting simple "social engineering"
> > exploits.
>
> Any OS is vulnerable to these types of attacks. NT is certainly not
> alone in this regard, if that's what you're attempting to say.
But Outllook is designed to make it easy.
> So, we have two local exploits for Red Hat vs one remote for NT.
>
> vs NONE for NT (one for SMS)
Except that most systems are on FAT because they have to be,
thus have no security at all.
> > That does not sound like the clear win you were looking for.
>
> But the point was to prove to that your statements that NT/2K have
> more P.E. attacks was false. This I have done quite clearly.
But you are ignoring the fact that it is easy to install the updates
that fix the RedHat bugs but next to impossible to fix NT and
Outlook's design problems that make exploits easy.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:56:03 GMT
"Roberto Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Chad" == Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Chad> "supports" or "runs on"? Those are two very different
> Chad> things.
>
> Both.
>
> Chad> Besides, how many people actually run Linux on something
> Chad> other than x86? Not very many. PPC or Alpha also-rans might
> Chad> be a distant second.
>
> A lot of people run Linux in other platforms. Right here we have an
> alpha server.
Wow, on Alpha server? That's a feat in and of itself considering the
rediculously poor support, poor documentation, and lack of any
decent setup on the Alpha side. I had an alpha box and never did manage
to get RH6.2 on it. It would freeze during boot up when it was detecting
the CDROM. NT, OTOH, booted right up and went into setup automatically
and the install took only a few minutes.
> Chad> NT _can_ run on almost any architecture, it just hasn't
> Chad> because of little demand.
>
> Yes, right...
Do you question this?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:59:09 GMT
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uarpn$trf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <raNN5.123790$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8u815l$kqt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
>
> > > 1. What is the largest database size allowed by MSDE?
> >
> > 2GB. Isn't that the largest file size allowed on Linux?
>
>
> No.
>
> In any case, OS filesize limitations are not directly
> relevant to the size of large databases. Postgres has
> no such limitation. Database sizes can be whatever you
> want. Even table sizes can exceed OS filesize limitations.
>
> The TASS astronomical database project,
> http://www.tass-survey.org, a PostgreSQL database running
> under Linux, is >5 Gb in size.
But it has to break up the database into seperate files or
do some other fancy tricks right? Or did they apply the
questionable "bigfile" patch?
>
> >However, you can have as many 2GB databases connected to the
> >server as you want.
>
>
> Yeah, that's great. But the fact is: MSDE is crippleware.
So?
>
>
> > > 2. How many users does MS claim MSDE is "optimized" for?
> >
> > 20.
>
>
> Try 5.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/techart/APG01.htm
>
> Microsoft: "MSDE doesn't limit the number of users who can connect to
> its database, but it is optimized for five users. For a larger numbers
> of users, you should use SQL Server 7.0."
>
>
> In other works, if you plan to have more than 5 users, Microsoft
> suggests you forget MSDE and blow some big bucks on MS SQL 7.0.
> Kind of makes your investment in Access really pay off, doesn't
> it?
Well, if you have more than 5 users, more than likely the cost
of full-blown SQLServer7 is negligable.
Besides, you can re-tweak the settings to tune MSDE back up to 20
or more users anyhow. There's nothing preventing you. It just
comes shipped tweaked for low ram utilization, low CPU utilization,etc.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:16:22 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:27:18 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This is a false expectation, margins are so low on Windows consumer
> >hardware, that products net very little money. That combined with the
> >fact that Linux users are genrally more computer literate than most
> >Windows users, means that support costs for Linux devices would be
> >lower, that added with the fact that there is little competition, means
> >that getting 10% of a Linux market, may be more profitable than 1% of
> >the Windows market.
>
[snippage]
What is, is not always the best thing.
Lets take some numbers out of the air to think about. (I think all are
in pretty reasonable ranges.)
Assume:
200 Million active Windows users.
10 Million active Linux users.
Windows Version:
Scanner cost to make: $10.00
Drivers: $10.00 (development amortized over first year expected sales)
OEM Licence: $10.00 (Some cheezy graphics programs)
End User Sup: $10.00 (Assuming $100 per call, 1 in 10 call)
Ship to store: $10.00
Store Markup: $20.00
sub total $70.00
Street Price: $79.99 (Price has to be low because of competition)
Profit $9.99
Linux Version
cost to make: $10.00
Drivers: $5.00 (Mostly free, and have source)
OEM Licence: $0 (Gimp is free)
End User Sup: $2 (Assuming $100 per call, 1 in 50 call)
Ship to store: $10.00
Store Markup: $20.00
sub total $47.00
Street Price $89.99 (Special Linux edition! see penguin)
Profit $42.99
Lets say there is a market of 10% of the users of a computer platform
will buy a scanner. For Windows, thats 20 million users, for Linux that
is 1 million users. In the Windows market, you have a large number of
competitors, say 8. Say, you have a pretty good share, say 20% of the
market is yours. You sell 4 Million scanners. Lets say, because your the
only game in town, you get 90% of the Linux market, you sell 900,000
scanners.
900,000 * $42.99 = $38,691,00
4,000,000 * $9.99 = $39,960,000
Looking at these numbers, I'd say Linux is a very good market.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 14:20:52 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ubc1p$2al$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > No, you have a yes or no choice with no hint
> > of the correct answer. If you choose 'open'
> > it is up to the sender what will happen next.
>
> Then don't *choose* open.
> Simple, isn't it?
That makes email wonderfully useful, now
doesn't it... A new timesaver from Microsoft.
Just discard all your email since you can't
safely view it under Windows.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who says Linux is great?
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:25:43 -0500
"Roberto Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Aleksandar" == Aleksandar V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First, can you turn off the option to put the name of the poster before each
quoted line?
It's EXTREMELY annoying.
> Aleksandar> I can't hide my disappointment about Linux. You all
> Aleksandar> seem to enjoy to talk some nonsense about "stability"
> Aleksandar> of Linux kernel. How about stability of X, or any
> Aleksandar> X-based application you use?
>
> First of all, X is _not_ Linux. It is an application and yes, it is
> not (even close) as stable as the Linux kernel.
Here we go folks. The linux kernel? Well, that's great. What do you have
after you have installed the linux kernel? Nothing. That's what you have.
Nothing. What am I going to see if I boot up with JUST the linux kernel in
my boot sector?
> Aleksandar> This is one particular problem that I encountered last
> Aleksandar> week: I copied a CD to hda1 partition (fat32) under
> Aleksandar> Gnome as a background process. The only application
> Aleksandar> running except Gnome Midnight Commander was Netscape -
> Aleksandar> I browsed some local files. When the copying was near
> Aleksandar> finish an unusual error occurred "In the background
> Aleksandar> process". It resulted in poping up of dozens, same
> Aleksandar> warning windows, and the system run out of memory so
> Aleksandar> it started swapping so wildly that I could not use my
> Aleksandar> computer. I decided to let it do - whatever it
> Aleksandar> started, for about 10 minutes. Finally I had to try to
> Aleksandar> restart X with ctrl+alt+backspace. The computer did
> Aleksandar> not respond to this.
>
> Aleksandar> And how it ended? I had to hit the reset button on the
> Aleksandar> machine.
>
> Did you try to switch to another terminal, log in and kill the process?
What part of "The computer did not respond to this" are you having trouble
with?
> Aleksandar> WHAT A GREEEEAT STABILITY. WOW!
>
> So Gnome is unstable. Oh, what a great news! I did not know that.
Something that runs on-under-on top of Linux NOT stable!!!???!!!
Say it's not so, Joe. This can't be! I mean, just read this group!
> Gnome is a under development, it is _not_ a finished or stable product
> (Gnome people will flame for that, but it is true.)
OK
> You cannot judge Linux stability for Gnome. If you use Gnome in your
> server, than you are at least lame.
OK. But that would equate to probably 50% of this group being lame....
Hmm... I'll buy that. (-8
> Usually you do not want to install X in a server, since it is (a)
> useless there and (b) bound to crash sooner or later.
Uhh...where does he say he was running a "server"
- I seem to have missed that part.
> Aleksandar> Another thing why Linux is bad is memory usage: I have
> Aleksandar> 32 MB of RAM, and I don't want to upgrade this
> Aleksandar> machine. Linux (Red Hat 6.0) with Gnome is using
> Aleksandar> around 33 MB alone, so it swaps immediately upon
> Aleksandar> loading.
>
> Once again, you are not speaking about Linux, you are talking about
> Gnome. Gnome and Linux are two completely different things.
I think the poster is aware of the obvious. But you state is SOOO well
though.
> Gnome runs in other OS's too, BTW
Noooooooooo thank you!!
> Aleksandar> I checked memory usage of Windows 98 (build 1998, with
> Aleksandar> IE 4 SP1). It uses 19 MB alone. (When IE 5 is
> Aleksandar> installed, I think it's using around 24 MB.)
>
> Get a Linux box in the console and stop the services you don't have in
> Win98 and compare the memory usage. You will be surprised.
Well, no shit Sherlock. What is he going to run with no X server that will
give him *anything* close to the applications he's used to running under
windows. This argument really isn't worth any time.
Besides, boot into DOS and look at the memory use. Hell, rip the OS out and
just look at the post screen for memory. Feel better? What the F are you
going to do with your computer?
> Aleksandar> So what do you have to say about performance of Linux?
> Aleksandar> How does requirements for 33 MB or more compares to
> Aleksandar> 19?
>
> Linux does not require 33MB. I have a 486 with 8MB running Linux as a
> small router with no problem.
So now you want him to run a small router to burn his CD's, play his games,
and browse his files?
What has this to do with ANYTHING he says in this post? What IS your point?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: 8 Nov 2000 15:19:51 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>His common sense, as well as mine is telling him that Linux is just
>too fragile.
>
>Whatever bad habits he has, and I don't know, he hasn't aborted a
>system in years, till this one.
You give up too easily, and/or Linux has adopted some bad default
practices.
When I got mine (Jan 1994) it ran out of the box doing two things: (1) a
sync every 30 seconds, and (2) an fsck after a reasonable number of
mounts of the filesystem (not sure, maybe it's 16). These two things
were a lot of the reason Linux was so stable, even then (only the well
known freeze problem upon plugging or unplugging the mouse was an
annoyance, but that sync thing kept it from being a real problem).
So what's it like now? (BTW I still use mine and have never seen what
your friend is seeing...)
One other thing: I never use "resume mode" on my laptop. As the battery
has been totally dead since 1995, I can imagine something like that
becoming a potential bugsource, but then the frequent syncs should take
are of that.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Konqueror a great web browser
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:28:41 -0500
"Clamchu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message using "Hotmail" no less....
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Let's give a big round of applause to the Konqueror team for what their
> many bright minds have accomplished.
>All new web browser development efforts
> should be directed toward unix or Linux. Screw Windows. 99.999% of all
> Windows users all clueless computer neophytes who only care about using
> whatever web browser is packed with Windows.
I do SO love linux advocacy. Keep up the good work folks!
------------------------------
From: Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: 08 Nov 2000 12:33:24 -0500
>>>>> "Chad" == Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chad> NT _can_ run on almost any architecture, it just hasn't
Chad> because of little demand.
>> Yes, right...
Chad> Do you question this?
Yes. Show me your NT running in a Solaris, please.
--
Roberto Teixeira
Conectiva, Inc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: 8 Nov 2000 15:26:32 +0100
In article <8uacv6$87j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>www.google.com; search for 'linux repair file system':
>
>4th hit: 'File System Corruption after Power Outage or System Crash'
>http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP/lame/LAME/linux-admin-made-easy/x2590.html
>
>And the quote:
>
>"Likely you will be able to run e2fsck on the corrupted file system(s)
>which should hopefully resolve all the problems found."
>
>Gee, that took all of about 15 seconds.
Nice but if the guy's only access is through that laptop then he is
screwed (of course, decent distributions like Slackware have those
HOWTO's already loaded, but if he's hosed his system he can't read them
unless he's already printed them out).
Thanks for that LAME link!
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 06:42:15 -0800
From: Caldera OpenLinux User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Do you understand that most MS systems are running of FAT partitions?
> FAT
> > > having no ability to do permissions.
> >
> > Yes, I understand. MS operating systems are a security hole : no
> > permissions.
>
> Check out NTFS.
> Very good permissions.
>
> > > Outlook has preview functions that run those macros? I don't think so.
> > >
> > We seem to have caught a virus like that. At least thats what the IT
> > group tells me. They are all certified microsoft software engineers.
>
> What was it's name.
> The only auto-preview that I can think of in outlook is for images.
>
> > > No, it's not.
> > > The only option is never to run unviewed macros without reading them
> first.
> > > Which is easily possible by clicking No when you are asked if you want
> to
> > > run the macro.
>
> > The only option is to never run macros. I don't have time to try to read
> > every macro in every *.doc file or *.xls file or whatever. My only
> > options are to either ignore the warning and open the file or not run
> > the file at all. My job isn't to be an expert in microsoft macros. So I
> > don't have time or intrest to learn the scripting languages. Neither
> > does the average user who just wants to get a job done.
>
> By your own reasoning, you shouldn't run any software, close or open.
> Close because you don't have the source, so you don't know what it will do.
> Open because it's too much work to learn the language and read and
> understand what this does.
Now you get it!
Choose to run binaries programs often run by a large community of users and
heavily scrutinized. There is some reasonable understanding that the program
is safe. With a MS office data file (and ActiveX) there is no such
assurance. It's a design flaw that allows these kinds of files to execute
commands and access the OS. The design is one reason windows users pay a
virus detection tax - they need to buy and run virus detection software and
check every downloaded/attached file before they open it.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who says Linux is great?
Date: 08 Nov 2000 12:40:14 -0500
>>>>> "MH" == MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MH> First, can you turn off the option to put the name of the
MH> poster before each quoted line? It's EXTREMELY annoying.
No.
MH> Here we go folks. The linux kernel? Well, that's great. What
MH> do you have after you have installed the linux kernel?
MH> Nothing. That's what you have. Nothing. What am I going to
MH> see if I boot up with JUST the linux kernel in my boot sector?
What do you have after you installed your fantastic Windows 98 that
you say is so good? Do you want to stay with only your Windows 98 in
your machine? That would be cool, you could play Solitaire all day
long.
MH> What part of "The computer did not respond to this" are you
MH> having trouble with?
With the part that you did not answered the question. Did you tried to
log onto your machine from another host and tried to kill the process?
MH> Something that runs on-under-on top of Linux NOT
MH> stable!!!???!!! Say it's not so, Joe. This can't be! I mean,
MH> just read this group!
So what? Gnome is not stable. As I said, Gnome != Linux. Can't you
understand this? I do not have Gnome and I do use Linux.
MH> OK. But that would equate to probably 50% of this group being
MH> lame.... Hmm... I'll buy that. (-8
You say 50% of this group is running Gnome? I don't buy that.
MH> Uhh...where does he say he was running a "server" - I seem to
MH> have missed that part.
He does not. I said that. Linux was originally meant to be used as a
server OS. If you want to use it as a Windows replacement, learn how
to use it first.
MH> Well, no shit Sherlock. What is he going to run with no X
MH> server that will give him *anything* close to the applications
MH> he's used to running under windows. This argument really isn't
MH> worth any time. Besides, boot into DOS and look at the memory
MH> use. Hell, rip the OS out and just look at the post screen for
MH> memory. Feel better? What the F are you going to do with your
MH> computer?
No, he compared a Linux box (I assume) running many services with a
Win98 box. That is not a fair comparison. Then we must assume MS-DOS
is a lot better than Windows 2000 since it consumes less memory.
Does it do the same job?
MH> So now you want him to run a small router to burn his CD's,
MH> play his games, and browse his files? What has this to do
MH> with ANYTHING he says in this post? What IS your point?
No, I don't. I never said that, did I?
--
Roberto Teixeira
Conectiva, Inc.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:39:49 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jdO5.14179$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ubc1p$2al$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > No, you have a yes or no choice with no hint
> > > of the correct answer. If you choose 'open'
> > > it is up to the sender what will happen next.
> >
> > Then don't *choose* open.
> > Simple, isn't it?
>
> That makes email wonderfully useful, now
> doesn't it... A new timesaver from Microsoft.
> Just discard all your email since you can't
> safely view it under Windows.
You (purposely?) misinterrupt what I'm saying.
(although I've heard about cases when people dedicate X time (usually 1-2
hours) to read/respond to their mail, and then delete what they didn't had
time to catch up with, just in order to have to for some real work.)
I meant, don't choose to open the attachment directly from outlook, save it
to disk, where you've much more options at your disposal.
>From notepad for textual content to hex to binary to virus scanners to
recycled bin to whatever.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:46:03 +1000
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jdO5.14179$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ubc1p$2al$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > No, you have a yes or no choice with no hint
> > > of the correct answer. If you choose 'open'
> > > it is up to the sender what will happen next.
> >
> > Then don't *choose* open.
> > Simple, isn't it?
>
> That makes email wonderfully useful, now
> doesn't it... A new timesaver from Microsoft.
> Just discard all your email since you can't
> safely view it under Windows.
Wilful, deliberate, ignorant and just plain stupid misinterpretation of he
said does _not_ help you in any way, it just makes you look childish.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
